Originally published 2019-07-28.
The TF-19 WASP is a flamethrower attachment for heavy-lift drones, launched in July 2019 by Throwflame, a Cleveland, Ohio, company that describes itself as the oldest flamethrower maker in the United States. It sold for $1,499 and, according to the maker, can throw a stream of burning fuel about 25 feet. The short answer to the question most people ask, whether you can legally fly one, is that in the United States you generally cannot without specific permission from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
What the TF-19 WASP is and what it does
The WASP is not a drone in itself. It is a payload that bolts beneath a large commercial multirotor. Launch coverage described a one-gallon fuel tank, a burn time of roughly 90 to 100 seconds, and the need for a drone able to carry about five pounds of payload, which rules out ordinary camera drones.
In Throwflame's promotional video the unit hangs under a DJI S1000, a professional eight-rotor platform, with an A2 flight controller and a large lithium-polymer battery. The Verge estimated that a setup like that could add around $2,600 to the cost, so the real price of a working rig was well above the headline figure. The company's website now lists a second-generation version at a higher price.
Throwflame's promotional footage shows the TF-19 WASP mounted on a heavy-lift drone. Demonstrations of this kind come from the manufacturer and are not independent tests.
Why a company would build a flying flamethrower
Throwflame presented the WASP as a tool for jobs where fire is useful but hard to reach. Its suggested uses included controlled agricultural burns, clearing debris such as kites and plastic from power lines, burning weeds, removing wasp and hornet nests, snow and ice removal, pyrotechnics, film effects, firefighter training and grassland management.
Some of these ideas reflect real practice. Land managers do use fire deliberately: prescribed burns reduce dry fuel and lower the risk of larger wildfires, and some fire agencies already drop small incendiary spheres from aircraft or drones to light controlled burns. Utility workers in parts of Asia have used flame-equipped drones to remove rubbish snagged on high-voltage lines.
Not every buyer has a professional purpose, though. Founder Quinn Whitehead told Gizmodo that roughly half of the company's customers buy for recreation, with the other half using its products for farm work and similar tasks. That candour helped explain why the launch drew as much alarm as curiosity.
What US law says about armed drones
A few weeks after the WASP went on sale, in August 2019, the FAA published a public warning telling drone owners not to attach weapons or dangerous items, naming firearms, explosives, fireworks and flamethrowers as examples. The agency's message was blunt: “Do not consider attaching any items such as these to a drone.”
The legal basis is Section 363 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, titled “Prohibition Against Weapons”. It bars anyone from operating an unmanned aircraft equipped or armed with a dangerous weapon unless the FAA Administrator has authorised it. Each violation can bring a civil penalty of up to $25,000, and state or local charges can follow on top of that.
This creates an odd split that confuses many buyers. Handheld flamethrowers are not classed as firearms under federal law and are legal to own in most US states, though a few, including California, restrict them. Mounting the same kind of device on a drone, however, falls under aviation law, where the default answer is no.
Real-world risks of fire from the air
Fire behaves unpredictably even on the ground. From a drone, the operator is further away, wind from the rotors pushes flames sideways, and a gust or a lost radio link can drop burning fuel where nobody intended. In dry grass or brush, a single stray ember can start a wildfire that spreads faster than people can react.
Professional prescribed burns are planned around weather forecasts, fuel moisture, firebreaks and crews standing by with water. They usually require a burn permit from local fire authorities. A gadget does not replace that framework, which is why fire officials and aviation regulators reacted cautiously to consumer-facing products like the WASP.
Myths and misconceptions
“If flamethrowers are legal, flamethrower drones must be too”
Owning a flamethrower and flying one are governed by different rules. The FAA treats an incendiary device on a drone as a dangerous weapon, regardless of whether the same device is legal in a garage.
“It is just a bigger lighter”
The WASP sprays burning liquid fuel, not a small flame. That is why its marketing stressed range and burn time, and why it calls for a heavy, expensive aircraft.
“Drone fire is a new idea”
Using aircraft to start controlled burns is decades old. What was new in 2019 was a ready-made product aimed at the general public rather than at fire agencies working under official authorisation.
Practical takeaways
- In the US, attaching a flamethrower to a drone requires FAA authorisation; without it, fines of up to $25,000 per violation apply.
- Fire, burn-ban and nuisance rules at state and county level apply on top of aviation law.
- For land clearing, weed control or pest nests, licensed contractors and local fire services are the safer and legal route.
- Treat manufacturer videos as marketing, not proof of safety or suitability for a particular job.
Humans have relied on fire for cooking, warmth and land management for a very long time, and the urge to put it to new uses is old. The TF-19 WASP shows how quickly consumer technology can outrun the rules, and how firmly regulators stepped in once it did.
Sources: Gizmodo: The flame-throwing drone attachment; PetaPixel, August 2019: Do not weaponize your drone, FAA warns; The Verge, July 2019: The flamethrower drone; Throwflame (manufacturer)
COMMENTS